Page MenuHomePhabricator

karthikthecool (Karthik Bhat)
User

Projects

User does not belong to any projects.

User Details

User Since
Sep 3 2013, 10:25 PM (315 w, 2 d)

Recent Activity

Feb 25 2018

karthikthecool added a comment to D43236: [LoopInterchange] Loops with empty dependency matrix are safe..

LGTM.
Thanks

Feb 25 2018, 9:54 PM

Feb 12 2018

karthikthecool added a comment to D42906: [LoopInterchange] Check number of latch successors before accessing them..

Looks good to me.
Thanks

Feb 12 2018, 7:54 PM

Oct 4 2016

karthikthecool updated the diff for D21137: Instcombile min/max intrinsics calls.

Ping..
Updated diff.

Oct 4 2016, 3:23 AM

Jun 15 2016

karthikthecool added inline comments to D21137: Instcombile min/max intrinsics calls.
Jun 15 2016, 6:37 PM

Jun 14 2016

karthikthecool updated subscribers of D21363: Strided Memory Access Vectorization.
Jun 14 2016, 11:41 PM
karthikthecool added a comment to D21137: Instcombile min/max intrinsics calls.

Thanks
Karthik

Jun 14 2016, 5:37 PM

Jun 13 2016

karthikthecool added inline comments to D21316: Remove the ScalarReplAggregates pass.
Jun 13 2016, 8:32 PM
karthikthecool updated subscribers of D17386: Loop Fusion Pass.
Jun 13 2016, 10:06 AM
karthikthecool retitled D21284: Fold fmin(nnan x, inf) -> x, fmax(nnan x, -inf) -> x, fmax(nnan ninf x, -flt_max) -> x and fmin(nnan ninf x, flt_max) -> x from to Fold fmin(nnan x, inf) -> x, fmax(nnan x, -inf) -> x, fmax(nnan ninf x, -flt_max) -> x and fmin(nnan ninf x, flt_max) -> x.
Jun 13 2016, 6:03 AM · Restricted Project

Jun 12 2016

karthikthecool abandoned D3243: Fix PR19195.

Abandon old review as im no longer working on the same.
Thanks

Jun 12 2016, 10:05 AM

Jun 10 2016

karthikthecool updated the diff for D21137: Instcombile min/max intrinsics calls.

Thanks David for the comments. I get your point now. Updated the code to incorporate comment.

Jun 10 2016, 6:46 AM

Jun 9 2016

karthikthecool updated subscribers of D21137: Instcombile min/max intrinsics calls.

Hi David, Matt,
Thanks a lot for the review comments. Please find my comments below-

Jun 9 2016, 9:38 PM

Jun 8 2016

karthikthecool updated the diff for D21137: Instcombile min/max intrinsics calls.

Update the patch to handle NaN's.
As escha suggested the previous code will fail in case on NaN.
We will need runtime checks to see if the value is NaN and select X or Y accordingly.

Jun 8 2016, 11:40 PM
karthikthecool added a comment to D21137: Instcombile min/max intrinsics calls.

Thanks escha for the counter example. I will handle NaN case properly.
Apart from that it should work properly right?

Jun 8 2016, 10:01 AM
karthikthecool retitled D21137: Instcombile min/max intrinsics calls from to Instcombile min/max intrinsics calls.
Jun 8 2016, 7:45 AM

Jun 1 2016

karthikthecool updated subscribers of D20769: [IPRA] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Analysis Passes.
Jun 1 2016, 11:41 PM

Aug 13 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Rebase patch and resolve confilts.
LNT Statistics:
Number of Cross Block Stores eliminated in LLVM-LNT: 849
Number of Benchmarks improved: 2

MultiSource/Benchmarks/Trimaran/enc-pc1/enc-pc1 : 38.86%
MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign : 5.36%

No Regressions observed.

Aug 13 2015, 12:27 AM

Aug 11 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Updated patch as per Erik's comments.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Aug 11 2015, 9:08 PM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Sorry guys for multiple updates on patch..:( forgot to move dyn_cast<StoreInst> above getModRefInfo in one of the place in the previous patch.
Regards
Karthik Bhat

Aug 11 2015, 4:20 AM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Run clang-format on updated patch and implement Hal's review comments.
I agree with Hal that we may hoist dyn_cast<StoreInst> above ModRef check. In case of store we can rely on Alias Analysis's alias to check if the stores mustalias. For other cases we can use getModRefInfo to make make sure that this instruction which is not a store does not Mod/Ref the pointer. Updated and tested the code after modification.
Please let me know your inputs on the same.

Aug 11 2015, 4:00 AM

Aug 10 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Updated patch as per Erik's comments.

Aug 10 2015, 10:11 PM
karthikthecool added a comment to D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi Erik,
Thanks for looking into the patch. Please find my comments inline. Will post the updated patch shortly.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Aug 10 2015, 10:03 PM
karthikthecool updated subscribers of D11854: DeadStoreElimination: remove a redundant store even if the load is in a different block..
Aug 10 2015, 6:23 PM
karthikthecool added a comment to D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the comments.. Filed a bug as
https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24415 .
I too will try to have look at this issue seperatly.. Any other comments on this patch Daniel?
Thanks for your valuable time.
Regards
Karthik

Aug 10 2015, 10:47 AM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi All,
Rebased patch and implemented few review comments.
Please let me know your inputs on the same.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Aug 10 2015, 4:44 AM
karthikthecool added a comment to D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi Daniel,Hal,
Thanks for the review. Please find my comments inline. I will try to upload the updated patch shortly.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik

Aug 10 2015, 3:37 AM

Aug 4 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi Hal,
Thanks for looking into the patch. Please find my comments inline.
Regards
Karthik Bhat

Aug 4 2015, 1:53 AM

Aug 3 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Gentle ping..

Aug 3 2015, 12:43 AM

Jul 28 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi All,
Update the patch to fix a failure in LLVM-LNT testcase on 32bit ubuntu. Unfortunetly i was not able to catch it on my 64bit machine.
This failure occured as we incorrectly deleted a store that was followed by a store that partially aliased it.
When seraching if a candidate store is safe we conservately mark a store as unsafe if we found a store that may/partially alias the candidate store.
This fixes failure found in LLVM LNT on 32bit ubuntu.
We still observe some 30%+ execution time improvement in MultiSource/Benchmarks/Trimaran/enc-pc1/enc-pc1.

Jul 28 2015, 5:29 AM

Jul 27 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi Hal,
Thanks for the review. Please find the updated patch addressing review comments.
Please let me know your opinion on the same.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Jul 27 2015, 1:00 AM

Jul 21 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

gentle ping..

Jul 21 2015, 4:27 AM

Jul 16 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi Daniel,
Please find the updated patch as per your inputs. I have removed the dependency from PDT Frontier and using the DFS in/out on PDT to find the candidate store.

Jul 16 2015, 3:27 AM

Jul 14 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi Daniel,
Thanks for the input. Yes this approach is definitely very expensive. I was surprised when i didn't see any compile time regressions on LLVM LNT.
Your approach of using postdom and dfs in/out seems very interesting I will try out the same and update shortly.
Thanks for your valuable inputs. Will get back with the updated patch shortly.

Jul 14 2015, 8:17 AM

Jul 13 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Hi Evgeny,
Thanks for looking into the patch. I think the reason dom frontier is deprecared is that it is costly to calculate the same.. im not sure as well though.
Im currently using postdom frontier to get the basic block boundry till which a store might overwrite a memory location making it dead. Dead store elimation without having postdom seems to be a bit tough especially given the overhead it would require without postdom.
Thanks
Karthik

Jul 13 2015, 9:59 AM
karthikthecool added a comment to D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE.

Attaching LLVM LNT Test results.(15 Samples)
Execution time of 2 benchmarks improved post Cross block DSE patch. Surprisingly i didn't see any compile time regression.

Jul 13 2015, 6:58 AM
karthikthecool retitled D11143: [RFC] Cross Block DSE from to [RFC] Cross Block DSE.
Jul 13 2015, 6:55 AM

Jul 5 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D10836: [ConstFolding] Allow constfolding of llvm.sin.* and llvm.cos.* intrinsics.

gentle ping...

Jul 5 2015, 8:30 PM

Jun 30 2015

karthikthecool retitled D10836: [ConstFolding] Allow constfolding of llvm.sin.* and llvm.cos.* intrinsics from to [ConstFolding] Allow constfolding of llvm.sin.* and llvm.cos.* intrinsics.
Jun 30 2015, 3:48 AM

Jun 26 2015

karthikthecool closed D10156: [Static Analyzer] Fix Analysis being skipped for code with declarations in .h file.

Thanks Anna. (Has been committed as r240800)

Jun 26 2015, 9:31 PM
karthikthecool accepted D10156: [Static Analyzer] Fix Analysis being skipped for code with declarations in .h file.
Jun 26 2015, 9:31 PM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D10156: [Static Analyzer] Fix Analysis being skipped for code with declarations in .h file.

Hi Anna,
Thanks for the input. Your code seems much more structured. Updated the code and tests as per your comments.
I had added-

if (SM.isInMainFile(SL))
  return Mode;

because my understanding was we do not analyze header files till analyze-all option is specified but it seems i was wrong we do analyze function definition inside header files if called from the main file(checked in llvm 3.5). Updated the code to remove the check.

Jun 26 2015, 1:44 AM

Jun 23 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D10156: [Static Analyzer] Fix Analysis being skipped for code with declarations in .h file.

Hi Anna,
Thanks for the review. Please find the updated code as per review comments.
Please let me know if this looks good to you.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Jun 23 2015, 12:21 AM

Jun 22 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D10156: [Static Analyzer] Fix Analysis being skipped for code with declarations in .h file.

gentle ping..

Jun 22 2015, 1:24 AM

Jun 1 2015

karthikthecool retitled D10156: [Static Analyzer] Fix Analysis being skipped for code with declarations in .h file from to [Static Analyzer] Fix Analysis being skipped for code with declarations in .h file.
Jun 1 2015, 12:33 AM

Apr 22 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Hi Renato,
Updated test cases as per comments. Please let me know if this looks good to you.
Verified with Debug+Assert build and make check-all on X86_64.

Apr 22 2015, 12:15 AM

Apr 21 2015

karthikthecool added inline comments to D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..
Apr 21 2015, 5:38 AM
karthikthecool abandoned D9046: Refactor identification of reductions and expose them as utility functions .

This has been submitted as r235284.
Not getting an option to close revision hence abondoning it..:(

Apr 21 2015, 5:23 AM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Hi James,Renato,
Updated LoopInterchange.cpp as per review comments. Please have a look when you find time.
Thanks a lot for your time and guidance.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Apr 21 2015, 5:18 AM
karthikthecool added a comment to D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Hi James, Renato,
Thanks for the comments. Updated the code to address review comments in LoopInterchange. Please find my comments inline.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Apr 21 2015, 5:16 AM

Apr 20 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Hi Renato,
Thanks for the review and time. Updating code to reflect changes done in r235284.

Apr 20 2015, 5:02 AM

Apr 19 2015

karthikthecool accepted D9046: Refactor identification of reductions and expose them as utility functions .

Thanks Renato. Comitted as r235284.

Apr 19 2015, 9:44 PM

Apr 17 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D9046: Refactor identification of reductions and expose them as utility functions .

Hi Adam,
Thanks for the link. It was quite useful. Updated the code to remove redundant #includes.
Please let me know if you have any other comments.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Apr 17 2015, 9:55 PM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D9046: Refactor identification of reductions and expose them as utility functions .

Hi Renato,
Thanks for the review. Addressing review comments.
I have made ReductionInstDesc and ReductionDescriptor as class as per your suggestion. Made member variables as private and exposed them through get functions so that they can be used in LoopVectorizer. I hope you are ok with this change?

Apr 17 2015, 2:01 PM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D9046: Refactor identification of reductions and expose them as utility functions .

Hi All,
Updated the code to address Adam,Renato's comments.
Following are the changes-

  1. Moved Enums inside structs.
  2. Marked local functions in struct as static.
  3. Moved functions inside of ReductionDescriptor.
Apr 17 2015, 7:37 AM

Apr 16 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Hi Renato,
Updated code as per reveiw comments. Refactored reduction identification code out of loop vectorizer and reusing the same in this pass. This code assumes D9046 has been applied.

Apr 16 2015, 6:59 AM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D9046: Refactor identification of reductions and expose them as utility functions .

Hi Renato,
Thanks for your valuable inputs. I have addressed one of your comments and modified the comments as per your suggestion.
Will wait for your/James input on if to move the enums into namespace/structure.

Apr 16 2015, 6:30 AM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D9046: Refactor identification of reductions and expose them as utility functions .

Hi James,
Thanks for the review. Yes it makes sense to move it out of LoopVectorizer.cpp. Updated the code as per reveiw comments.
Added a file LoopUtils.cpp in lib/Transforms/Utils with refactored code. We can add any additional common loop functionalities in this util file.

Apr 16 2015, 5:04 AM

Apr 15 2015

karthikthecool retitled D9046: Refactor identification of reductions and expose them as utility functions from to Refactor identification of reductions and expose them as utility functions .
Apr 15 2015, 10:31 PM

Apr 14 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Hi Hal,Renato,
A gentle ping for review.

Apr 14 2015, 10:34 AM

Apr 5 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

A gentle ping..

Apr 5 2015, 11:18 AM

Mar 27 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Add full context diff.

Mar 27 2015, 4:54 AM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Hi Renato,
Sorry for the delay in followup on this patch was stuck in some other work. I was able to refactor isInductionVar out of LoopVectorizer and we are using the re-factored function in this patch.

Mar 27 2015, 4:51 AM

Mar 26 2015

karthikthecool closed D8608: Refactor Code inside LoopVectorizer's function isInductionVariable.
Mar 26 2015, 8:48 PM
karthikthecool accepted D8608: Refactor Code inside LoopVectorizer's function isInductionVariable.

Thanks Arnold. Committed as r233352.

Mar 26 2015, 8:48 PM

Mar 25 2015

karthikthecool retitled D8608: Refactor Code inside LoopVectorizer's function isInductionVariable from to Refactor Code inside LoopVectorizer's function isInductionVariable.
Mar 25 2015, 7:54 AM

Mar 23 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Thanks Renato, Tobias for your inputs. Please find my comments inline-

Mar 23 2015, 6:25 AM

Mar 17 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Hi Hal,Renato,
Refactor some common code into functions. I have currently borrowed and modified some functions from loop vectorizer. Do i need to refactor them into a common utility as well? These functions such as AddReductionVar seems to be a bit tightly bound with loop vectorizer code.

Mar 17 2015, 1:48 AM

Mar 13 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..

Hi Renato,
Thanks for looking into the patch. Please find my comments inline.

Wouldn't this be better to be integrated into the vectorizer? Or at least, not duplicated code from the vectorizer?

Since this is a complete pass integrating this will loop vectorizer would be a bit difficult. I can try to move common functions into a utility file if required.

Mar 13 2015, 10:50 AM
karthikthecool retitled D8314: [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions. from to [LoopInterchange] Add support to interchange loops with reductions..
Mar 13 2015, 2:50 AM

Mar 10 2015

karthikthecool closed D8059: Fix a crash in Dependency Analysis.

Thanks comitted as r231788.

Mar 10 2015, 7:36 AM
karthikthecool closed D8162: Fix crash in Dependence Analysis module.

Thanks Hal. Comitted as r231784.
Will try to understand delinearization analysis and get back shortly.
Can you also have a look at D8059 when you find time.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Mar 10 2015, 6:37 AM
karthikthecool added a comment to D8162: Fix crash in Dependence Analysis module.

Hi Hal,
The logic added currently prevents marking the GEP as UsefulGEP and hence different GEP index are not compared independently.
Dependency analysis currently reports an anti dependency between the 2 memory access as -

da analyze - consistent input [S S]!
da analyze - anti [S S|<]!
da analyze - consistent output [S S]!

as it is not considered as UsefulGEP as it doesn't know if k can overflow or not.

Mar 10 2015, 2:55 AM

Mar 9 2015

karthikthecool retitled D8162: Fix crash in Dependence Analysis module from to Fix crash in Dependence Analysis module.
Mar 9 2015, 3:30 AM

Mar 8 2015

karthikthecool abandoned D7432: [RFC] Loop Interchane Pass.

Patch was moved to D7499 and committed as r231458.

Mar 8 2015, 9:52 PM

Mar 6 2015

karthikthecool closed D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Thanks Hal. Committed as r231458 after implementing review comments. Will raise a review for DependencyAnalysis fix shortly.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Mar 6 2015, 2:24 AM

Mar 5 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Hi All,
Rebase to trunc and update the test cases to reflect recent changes in IR format.

Mar 5 2015, 6:00 AM

Mar 4 2015

karthikthecool retitled D8059: Fix a crash in Dependency Analysis from to Fix a crash in Dependency Analysis.
Mar 4 2015, 7:49 AM

Feb 26 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Hi Hal,
Please find the updated patch attached. Addressed review comments and fixed few issues in Loop Interchange found during llvm lnt regression. After this change we find some improvement in execution time of 2 benchamrk test cases as shown in the previous post. There are few issues in Dependency analysis as you mentioned I'm planning to address it seperatly after looking into the module in more detail. Hope that should be fine?
Please let me know your inputs on the patch.
Thanks for your time and help.
Regards
Karthik Bhat

Feb 26 2015, 9:12 PM
karthikthecool added a comment to D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Hi Hal,
Please find my comments inline. Updated the patch as per review comments and fixed few issues found during llvm lnt regression.
The current version of loop interchange gives some 30% improvement in execution time in 2 benchmarks. This is because it contains code fragments like -

for (i = 0; i < _PB_N; i++)
 for (j = 0; j < _PB_N; j++)
   x[i] = x[i] + beta * A[j][i] * y[j];

which gets benefited after interchange.
There are few compile time regression which can be because of the heavy legality checks in loop interchange. I will try to fix this in next iteration.
Apart from this we found a crash in Dependency Analysis module which I'm planning to fix seperatly as i need to understand it in more detail. Will raise a bug on the same.

Feb 26 2015, 9:11 PM

Feb 22 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Hi Hal,
I had some time to work on generic version of loop interchange to support any depth. This updated patch supports loops of any depth.
The loop selection algorithm currently selects the innermost loop for interchange. Going forward we can improve this heuristic to select the most profitable loop based on Dependency matrix.
To keep it simple in the first version loops with LCSSA phi are currently not handled. I will work on handling them in later iterations.
The legality and profitability logic is pretty much the same. We use dependency matrix to conclude legality of interchange of 2 loops.

Feb 22 2015, 9:19 AM

Feb 19 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Hi Hal,
Thanks for the review.
Please find the updated patch. Moved tests from vectorize.ll to profitability.ll and interchange.ll. Checking for loop interchange as per comments. Also added a negative test case to check profitabilitymodel.(i.e. were it is legal but not profitable to interchange).

Feb 19 2015, 9:55 PM

Feb 18 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Hi Hal,
Sorry for the delay in followup. I was on a vaction.
Please find the updated and rebased patch. Added test cases as per your suggestion. I also verified the o/p of the programs on randomly generated array and o/p's are same before and after interchange in cases were loops are interchanged.

Feb 18 2015, 1:14 AM

Feb 13 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Hi Hal,
Updated the test case to add a test case to cover case were we have a usage of PHI outside the loop. I have added gi,gj as global vaiable and used them as induction variables in the loop to simulate this case.

Feb 13 2015, 2:53 AM
karthikthecool added inline comments to D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.
Feb 13 2015, 1:59 AM

Feb 12 2015

karthikthecool updated the diff for D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Hi Hal,
Thanks a lot for the review. Updated the patch to address review comments. Also fixed a few issues which I found during testing.
Major changes include-

  1. Logic to calculate profitibility has been made more acurate.
  2. Logic to detect were to split the inner loop is changed to be more acurate.
  3. Added test case to check the updated profitibility model.
Feb 12 2015, 7:20 AM
karthikthecool added a comment to D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.

Hi Hal,
Thanks for the review. Please find my comments updated below. Will upload modified patch shortly.

Feb 12 2015, 7:17 AM

Feb 9 2015

karthikthecool updated subscribers of D7439: [LoopReroll] Introduce the concept of DAGRootSets..
Feb 9 2015, 9:11 AM
karthikthecool retitled D7499: [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass from to [Patch] Loop Interchange Pass.
Feb 9 2015, 5:24 AM
karthikthecool added a comment to D7432: [RFC] Loop Interchane Pass.

Hi James,Hal,
Thanks for your inputs. Hal I will move this to llvm commits shortly was working on few issues which i found during testing.
James i tried the example-

 int a = 2;
 for (i=0;i<N;++i) {
  for (j=0;j<M;++j) {
    A[j][i+a] = A[j][i]+1;
  }
}

The dependency analysis returns an anti dependecy of [-2 0] between the load and store and we interchange successfully.
But if add is unknown then i assume it is not safe to interchange as we do not know for sure what dependecy exits.

Feb 9 2015, 2:18 AM

Feb 6 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D7432: [RFC] Loop Interchane Pass.

Hi James,Pekka,
Thanks for the comments and spending your valuable time on this. Please find my comments.

Feb 6 2015, 4:57 AM

Feb 5 2015

karthikthecool retitled D7432: [RFC] Loop Interchane Pass from to [RFC] Loop Interchane Pass.
Feb 5 2015, 5:25 AM

Feb 2 2015

karthikthecool updated subscribers of D7310: Add straight-line strength reduction to LLVM.
Feb 2 2015, 1:47 AM

Jan 27 2015

karthikthecool updated subscribers of D7193: [LoopVectorize] Induction variables: support arbitrary constant step.
Jan 27 2015, 7:18 PM

Jan 23 2015

karthikthecool abandoned D6793: [Static Analyzer] Fix false positive in Clang Static Analyzer.

Thanks Anna i think it makes sense.
Yes David i noticed it just now after you pointed out i had incorrectly added llvm-commit insted of cfe.

Jan 23 2015, 1:05 AM

Jan 22 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D6793: [Static Analyzer] Fix false positive in Clang Static Analyzer.

ping.

Jan 22 2015, 9:08 AM

Jan 20 2015

karthikthecool closed D6677: [SLPVectorizer] Reorder operands of shufflevector if it can result in a vectorized code..
Jan 20 2015, 11:59 PM

Jan 19 2015

karthikthecool accepted D6677: [SLPVectorizer] Reorder operands of shufflevector if it can result in a vectorized code..

Thanks Michael. Commit as r226547

Jan 19 2015, 10:16 PM
karthikthecool updated the diff for D6677: [SLPVectorizer] Reorder operands of shufflevector if it can result in a vectorized code..

Hi Michael,
I agree with you on the above example. Added a FIXME comment as per your suggession.
Updated variable names as per review comments.
Thanks and Regards
Karthik Bhat

Jan 19 2015, 7:39 PM
karthikthecool added a comment to D6677: [SLPVectorizer] Reorder operands of shufflevector if it can result in a vectorized code..

Hi Michael,
Thanks for the input. I really appreciate your help in the review process. I will rename the variables and update the patch as per review comments shortly.
Just one clarification here.
In your example -

b[0]     b[0]
b[1]     a[0]+c[0]
b[2]     a[1]*c[1]
b[3]     d[5]/e[6]

Post reordering i think we will still have good load order but in the right lane instead of left lane. If I'm not wrong we would get something like-

    b[0]     b[0]
a[0]+c[0]    b[1]
a[1]*c[1]    b[2]    
d[5]/e[6]    b[3]
Jan 19 2015, 11:43 AM

Jan 18 2015

karthikthecool added a comment to D6677: [SLPVectorizer] Reorder operands of shufflevector if it can result in a vectorized code..

Hi Micahel, sorry i think the comments above are not readable.Some problem with phabricator formatting.
Updated comments to make if more readable.

Jan 18 2015, 9:58 PM